Transcripts For CSPAN2 1984 Mock Trial 20160723 : comparemel

[inaudible conversations] ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Shakespeare Theater Company barred Association Annual dinner and mark trial. Before we begin the trial please take time to silence all Electronic Devices that may disrupt this evenings proceedings. Photography of the trial is strictly prohibited. Please join me in welcoming the chair of the barred association, abbe lowell. [applause] good evening. Thanks for joining us. The annual dinner and mark trial event by the Shakespeare Theater Company and barred association, Affinity Group of lawyers and those who support the community to bring the best we can to the stage, tonight after tonights performance is based on production of 1984 presented by the Shakespeare Theater Company a few short months ago which in turn is based on the 1949, that is right, 1949 book by George Orwell predicting what 1984 might look like. You all know the story very well, a countrys government vacuums up unanimous amount of data in the name of National Security, where countrys leader work hard to be scared and divided to prevent newcomers and serious opposition by among other techniques encouraging people to have daily sessions where they yell their anger and hate against anyone who disagrees with them and the opposition creates a sort of resistance by installing an offline communication system, not in the mainframe of the government to protect private communications. Maybe not so farfetched. At the conclusion of the argument you will serve as the jury and vote on the following questions. Given the context of war and the threat to National Security, should the oceania defendants be held liable for their treatment of Winston Smith in 1984. If you believe these officials should not be held liable please vote with the red token you were given for no. If you believe the oceania officials should be held liable, please Welcome Supreme Court marshall pamela malkin. [applause] please welcome to the stage abcaxvii from the law firm of arnold and porter. [applause] counsel for the respondent, the state of oceania, bob bauer. [applause] and members of the esteemed bench of the Supreme Court of oceania, supreme Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg, stephen breyer, patricia millett, and nina pillard. [applause] [applause] oh yea oh yea oh yea, the Supreme Court of oceania is now in session, please be seated. Welcome to 1984 as perceived by People Living in 2016. We will hear first from the petitioner represented by any jeffress. Thank you, your honor, may it please the court. My cocounsel and i represent our clients Winston Smith. Winston smith is not present this evening and we understand he may have been vaporized. Which goes straight to the first point of our argument. [laughter] there is a clear threat of irreparable injury in this case, which is why this court must join the state from the unlawful practices of big brother that president freeman promised to end. What injuries . Winston smith has already been wrongfully arrested, detained, interrogated and tortured and now possibly vaporized. Further, he, like all other citizens, are subject to the states constant unwarranted surveillance. As George Orwell wrote, a party number lives from birth to death under the i of the thoughtless. Estate of life in oceania is literally orwellian. The alleged National Security reasons for the states policies are vastly overblown. The state has not identified any concrete information collected through it in terms of surveillance that has been useful in defending National Security. To the contrary, so far this surveillance has only been used to ensure that oceania citizens are using the appropriate bathrooms. [laughter and applause] that is right, the state is surveilling its citizens solely to enforce the birth sex bathroom statute known by their acronym be sbs. How is the state conducting this surveillance . We understand the state has pushed malware to all cell phones, tablets and computers in oceania and has unfettered access to encrypted data and cameras on any device in oceania. These policies will not make oceania great again. [applause] which is what the thought police might claim. So the era of big brother is not over as president freeman has promised, which leads me to our second argument. The office is responsible before you move on, president freeman could be making a lot of money running casinos or reality tv programs, or giving private speeches to investment bankers. Instead, he cares enough to be our president devoted to taking care of the people. It seems pure conjecture that the thoughtful police would abuse the powers of observation they have only to keep us safe. He cares about one thing, his own power. Lets back up. Because you have introduced a threshold question, you have asked for sanctions to be set by this court for surreptitiously gaining access to your preliminary briefs. You did not identify what sections you sought and did not tell us what was in those briefs that you have explained. If you would respond to those, what do you now claim was in your prior briefs, we disclaim our prior briefs for Attorney Client privilege. We knew the state was monitoring our communications as we all know, we did not write anything that would be damaging because we know we live under constant surveillance but we moved perceptions because it is important for this court to acknowledge the state has abused its authority and the malware affecting all our devices is improper and must be enjoined. What do you see . We would like monetary damages and we would like to enjoin the state from further intrusive surveillance. One more preliminary question. I and all of my colleagues were appointed by president freeman, do you think you can gain impartial justice of this tribunal, or i understand president freeman is in his last term in office so would you move we order this proceeding in a van . That is an excellent question, your honor. That i had not thought of. Point brilliantly put. I am confident we can get a fair hearing from this bench. Approximately half of you previously worked for the aclu which is an affiliate of the oceania Civil Liberties union. We believe we could get a fair hearing. Only this court can protect the rights of Winston Smith and other citizens of oceania. You expressed concern about surveillance and its intrusion on your work and i wanted to assure you there will not be any cameras in the Supreme Court here. [applause] i want to ask you to focus on your argument about qualified immunity and a question that i think is key to this case. If maryman, double plus how could merryman establish . You dont speak newspeak . Is still enforced despite the laws that big brother has brought into play. No reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to subject Winston Smith to routine beatings and psychological torture. I really have a preliminary question here. How can you say that your clients faced a threat of irreparable harm . I mean, he cant even show standing. You read our claptrap decision. [laughter] your argument seems to rest on contingencies without any kind of risk that is certainly impending. Just because the state has surveillance powers to monitor every last communication of its subjects doesnt mean the government will actually use those powers. [laughter] your honor is correct that the court in the claptrap case [laughter] did find that the plaintiffs there had only a speculative claim of harm as a result of the governments surveillance practices. Here, however, Winston Smith can demonstrate that the government intends to inspect his cell phone and likely far worse, arrest, detain and torture him. Though it is worth noting that the dissenters in clapper were certainly correct, that the plaintiffs there were virtually certain to have their communications intercepted and monitored. But we need not rely on their consent because the majoritys ruling does not bind the court on these significantly very different facts. Are you asking us to intervene at the preliminary injunction stage . Why shouldnt we wait until a full record is developed at the permanent injunction stage . Why should we proceed on the skimpy record rather than everything you wanted to put in . Your honor, Winston Smith and the citizens of ocean on oceania need relief, and it must be done right away. We would note there is no National Security threat, as we have said. Big brother claims that war is peace when the fictitious war is merely a pretext to maintain the repressive social order and the partys grip on power. Dont you have a serious causationing problem that we need to establish a record for . Be i know in particular you argue in your brief that the parties system systematically destroyed and continuing with president freeman systematically destroyed the peoples capacity for independent analysis and critical thought. But as i think about causation, i wonder whether keeping up with the kardashians and other reality had already done that to us. [laughter] we are all suffering on a regular basis, your honor, thats a perfect example. [laughter] well [laughter] you know, theres a man who wrote about what you say was done, and that man was hamilton. And before i should say you get your way, i want to know what that man did say. [laughter] [applause] your honor [laughter] if hamilton were here, i know he would say that the defendants in this case, the thought police, should be held liable for their illegal mistreatment of Winston Smith. Our Founding Fathers would not have tolerated the abusive authorities that big brother has brought to the state of oceania. I dont know i have a question about the record in this case. Both sides have experience with rewriting history. The government, through its Truth Department, and thats where Winston Smith wrote, right . Rewriting history he wrote how can we have any confidence anything east side is telling us is true . Your honor, the court must be referring to double speak. [laughter] and oceanias slogan, war is peace, is premised on big brothers indoctrination of its citizens in double think which we are all suffering from. I also note that you [laughter] you rely on a case called ex parte merriman that was written by chief Justice Taney who also wrote the dred scott decision. [laughter] is he really a reliable source for liberties principles . We like the case because the plaintiff won. [laughter] [applause] that case was about suspension of the writ of habeas corpus . And why is it thats strictly academic in this case . Because whether its executive or the legislature, legislature in oceania is under the thumb of the executive. That is correct, your honor. And my opponent relies on the silence of congress as assent by congress, and we would argue that we cannot rely on congress to protect the rights of the citizens of oceania. Well, i would see that differently. I mean, hasnt congress effectively acquiesced in the unconstrained president ial powers that president freeman is exercising here . I mean, congress hasnt acted meaningfully in years. [laughter] [applause] in fact, the government leaders care so much for the peoples safety that they have almost nothing but safe seats left in congress. [laughter] that is exactly right, justice pillard, and that is exactly why we rely on this court for relief yeah, but those actions which you are complaining, so they happened 32 years ago. Are you discriminating against those with age . Isnt there a time when we turn the page . [laughter] [applause] [laughter] your honor, the thought police like all officials are presumed to have knowledge and respect for basic, unquestioned Constitutional Rights as set forth by our Founding Fathers to be free from unlawful arrest, detention and torture. Ms. Jeffers, i have another question which i will ask you in english. [laughter] a brief quote, nothing was illegal since there were no longer [inaudible] to quote from your brief. Doesnt that mean that no be law could have been clearly established . That is a concern that we have with the entire concept of qualified immunity in this case, your honor, is that there is no rule of law in a state like oceania. Again, we would submit that only this court can restore the rights of the citizens of oceania. So in conclusion, your honors, we insist that the defendants, the thought police, be held liable for their illegal mistreatment of Winston Smith. They must be held liable. No other outcome is consistent with the constitution, the vision of the Founding Fathers that Justice Breyer has so articulately quoted [laughter] and not some. And no other outcome is consistent with justice. I dont know, your whole argument seems premised on the idea that were in some kind of dystopian, Science Fiction be police state or something. [laughter] the scenario is 1984. [laughter] but youre asserting a privacy right x i checked and i checked, and your client is all over google and facebook and twitter and ins gram and snapchat and for this audience, linkedin. [laughter] [applause] and he even posted selfbyes with lebron james selfies with lebron james, is my understanding. [laughter] so what privacy right is left . Wouldnt you have to concede that apple, google and facebook know more about him than the state could ever learn . Your honor, that is an excellent point. Our client, however, did try to lead a private life and tried to have a relationship with a lover in the state that he was unable to have because of the states intrusionive surveillance. So there is privacy which he sought. And in addition, your honor, i would note that through the malware that the state has placed on all of our devices, its impossible to know whether all of the social media was truly originated by winston myth or had been placed Winston Smith or had been placed there by the ministry of truth for which he worked and for which he and others regularly used to transmit propaganda to support the states repressive regime. And i also noted that in your opponents brief they made some mention in footnote five of practices in Foreign Countries. But you didnt. You seem to focus only on domestic law. And are you aware that Justice Breyer just published a book called [laughter] american law and the new Global Reality . Are you disrespecting his views of the law . [laughter] i am aware of the book, your honor, and would never disrespect yeah, but did you read the book . [laughter] i bought the book. [laughter] ah, youre the one [laughter] i dont understand, i dont understand how you can [inaudible] given Winston Smiths own description of his condition after his reeducation by the state. He said, quote, that he, quote, logged big brother. But he understood that the party had helped him, quote, win the victory over himself. This seems to be a happy, content man. Whats he complaining about . Your honor, the state also argues that kin Winston Smiths argues that Winston Smiths problems are of his own making, that he is a victim of his own mine. Is someone paranoid if everybody truly is out to get him as the state clearly is in this case . This is the case for Winston Smith. He is the victim. The state criticizes his very thoughts. And how is the state aware of these private thoughts . Through its constant, unlawful, unrelenting surveillance, exactly the practice that smith challenges today. But precisely. We might as well dismiss now smiths case, if im understanding you correctly, which asserts a reasonable expectation of privacy. The essence of which is his unwillingness to show everything. So hasnt he effectively pled himself out of courtsome because an unwillingness to share everything via the iphone is contrary to the i patriot act. [laughter] he would not be showing everything through his iphone if the state did not have it infected by malware to make its every communication available to the state. But what about his facebook posts . Everythings out there, right . Why do you have what is your line about, between privacy of what youre sharing on social media and what you want to share with the state . Why cant the state find out too . In oceania, Winston Smith is not free to share his own posts because the thought police and the ministry of truth control everything. And i would like to reserve the remaining five minutes of my time for rebuttal, may it please the court. Thank you. Thank you, ms. Jeffress. [applause] and we will now hear from counsel for oceania, bob baur. Madam chief justice, and if as we strongly recommend it please the court [laughter] what then is this legal proceeding . Judges, counsel all over over te public except for the unfortunate who could not accept the ticket price. [laughter] all the world can see that this smith with his violent criminal history is now free to be a litigant, and this transition is the hallmark of a rule of law society. Petitioner claims he has been lawlessly tortured, but he grounds that in a record that is replete with paranoia. Its so 1984. Everybodys out to get him. State officials are whispering cryptically to him in hallways, and we say, oh, please. He also said that our Shakespeare Theater Company<\/a> barred Association Annual<\/a> dinner and mark trial. Before we begin the trial please take time to silence all Electronic Devices<\/a> that may disrupt this evenings proceedings. Photography of the trial is strictly prohibited. Please join me in welcoming the chair of the barred association, abbe lowell. [applause] good evening. Thanks for joining us. The annual dinner and mark trial event by the Shakespeare Theater Company<\/a> and barred association, Affinity Group<\/a> of lawyers and those who support the community to bring the best we can to the stage, tonight after tonights performance is based on production of 1984 presented by the Shakespeare Theater Company<\/a> a few short months ago which in turn is based on the 1949, that is right, 1949 book by George Orwell<\/a> predicting what 1984 might look like. You all know the story very well, a countrys government vacuums up unanimous amount of data in the name of National Security<\/a>, where countrys leader work hard to be scared and divided to prevent newcomers and serious opposition by among other techniques encouraging people to have daily sessions where they yell their anger and hate against anyone who disagrees with them and the opposition creates a sort of resistance by installing an offline communication system, not in the mainframe of the government to protect private communications. Maybe not so farfetched. At the conclusion of the argument you will serve as the jury and vote on the following questions. Given the context of war and the threat to National Security<\/a>, should the oceania defendants be held liable for their treatment of Winston Smith<\/a> in 1984. If you believe these officials should not be held liable please vote with the red token you were given for no. If you believe the oceania officials should be held liable, please Welcome Supreme Court<\/a> marshall pamela malkin. [applause] please welcome to the stage abcaxvii from the law firm of arnold and porter. [applause] counsel for the respondent, the state of oceania, bob bauer. [applause] and members of the esteemed bench of the Supreme Court<\/a> of oceania, supreme Justice Ruth Bader<\/a> ginsburg, stephen breyer, patricia millett, and nina pillard. [applause] [applause] oh yea oh yea oh yea, the Supreme Court<\/a> of oceania is now in session, please be seated. Welcome to 1984 as perceived by People Living<\/a> in 2016. We will hear first from the petitioner represented by any jeffress. Thank you, your honor, may it please the court. My cocounsel and i represent our clients Winston Smith<\/a>. Winston smith is not present this evening and we understand he may have been vaporized. Which goes straight to the first point of our argument. [laughter] there is a clear threat of irreparable injury in this case, which is why this court must join the state from the unlawful practices of big brother that president freeman promised to end. What injuries . Winston smith has already been wrongfully arrested, detained, interrogated and tortured and now possibly vaporized. Further, he, like all other citizens, are subject to the states constant unwarranted surveillance. As George Orwell<\/a> wrote, a party number lives from birth to death under the i of the thoughtless. Estate of life in oceania is literally orwellian. The alleged National Security<\/a> reasons for the states policies are vastly overblown. The state has not identified any concrete information collected through it in terms of surveillance that has been useful in defending National Security<\/a>. To the contrary, so far this surveillance has only been used to ensure that oceania citizens are using the appropriate bathrooms. [laughter and applause] that is right, the state is surveilling its citizens solely to enforce the birth sex bathroom statute known by their acronym be sbs. How is the state conducting this surveillance . We understand the state has pushed malware to all cell phones, tablets and computers in oceania and has unfettered access to encrypted data and cameras on any device in oceania. These policies will not make oceania great again. [applause] which is what the thought police might claim. So the era of big brother is not over as president freeman has promised, which leads me to our second argument. The office is responsible before you move on, president freeman could be making a lot of money running casinos or reality tv programs, or giving private speeches to investment bankers. Instead, he cares enough to be our president devoted to taking care of the people. It seems pure conjecture that the thoughtful police would abuse the powers of observation they have only to keep us safe. He cares about one thing, his own power. Lets back up. Because you have introduced a threshold question, you have asked for sanctions to be set by this court for surreptitiously gaining access to your preliminary briefs. You did not identify what sections you sought and did not tell us what was in those briefs that you have explained. If you would respond to those, what do you now claim was in your prior briefs, we disclaim our prior briefs for Attorney Client<\/a> privilege. We knew the state was monitoring our communications as we all know, we did not write anything that would be damaging because we know we live under constant surveillance but we moved perceptions because it is important for this court to acknowledge the state has abused its authority and the malware affecting all our devices is improper and must be enjoined. What do you see . We would like monetary damages and we would like to enjoin the state from further intrusive surveillance. One more preliminary question. I and all of my colleagues were appointed by president freeman, do you think you can gain impartial justice of this tribunal, or i understand president freeman is in his last term in office so would you move we order this proceeding in a van . That is an excellent question, your honor. That i had not thought of. Point brilliantly put. I am confident we can get a fair hearing from this bench. Approximately half of you previously worked for the aclu which is an affiliate of the oceania Civil Liberties<\/a> union. We believe we could get a fair hearing. Only this court can protect the rights of Winston Smith<\/a> and other citizens of oceania. You expressed concern about surveillance and its intrusion on your work and i wanted to assure you there will not be any cameras in the Supreme Court<\/a> here. [applause] i want to ask you to focus on your argument about qualified immunity and a question that i think is key to this case. If maryman, double plus how could merryman establish . You dont speak newspeak . Is still enforced despite the laws that big brother has brought into play. No reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to subject Winston Smith<\/a> to routine beatings and psychological torture. I really have a preliminary question here. How can you say that your clients faced a threat of irreparable harm . I mean, he cant even show standing. You read our claptrap decision. [laughter] your argument seems to rest on contingencies without any kind of risk that is certainly impending. Just because the state has surveillance powers to monitor every last communication of its subjects doesnt mean the government will actually use those powers. [laughter] your honor is correct that the court in the claptrap case [laughter] did find that the plaintiffs there had only a speculative claim of harm as a result of the governments surveillance practices. Here, however, Winston Smith<\/a> can demonstrate that the government intends to inspect his cell phone and likely far worse, arrest, detain and torture him. Though it is worth noting that the dissenters in clapper were certainly correct, that the plaintiffs there were virtually certain to have their communications intercepted and monitored. But we need not rely on their consent because the majoritys ruling does not bind the court on these significantly very different facts. Are you asking us to intervene at the preliminary injunction stage . Why shouldnt we wait until a full record is developed at the permanent injunction stage . Why should we proceed on the skimpy record rather than everything you wanted to put in . Your honor, Winston Smith<\/a> and the citizens of ocean on oceania need relief, and it must be done right away. We would note there is no National Security<\/a> threat, as we have said. Big brother claims that war is peace when the fictitious war is merely a pretext to maintain the repressive social order and the partys grip on power. Dont you have a serious causationing problem that we need to establish a record for . Be i know in particular you argue in your brief that the parties system systematically destroyed and continuing with president freeman systematically destroyed the peoples capacity for independent analysis and critical thought. But as i think about causation, i wonder whether keeping up with the kardashians and other reality had already done that to us. [laughter] we are all suffering on a regular basis, your honor, thats a perfect example. [laughter] well [laughter] you know, theres a man who wrote about what you say was done, and that man was hamilton. And before i should say you get your way, i want to know what that man did say. [laughter] [applause] your honor [laughter] if hamilton were here, i know he would say that the defendants in this case, the thought police, should be held liable for their illegal mistreatment of Winston Smith<\/a>. Our Founding Fathers<\/a> would not have tolerated the abusive authorities that big brother has brought to the state of oceania. I dont know i have a question about the record in this case. Both sides have experience with rewriting history. The government, through its Truth Department<\/a>, and thats where Winston Smith<\/a> wrote, right . Rewriting history he wrote how can we have any confidence anything east side is telling us is true . Your honor, the court must be referring to double speak. [laughter] and oceanias slogan, war is peace, is premised on big brothers indoctrination of its citizens in double think which we are all suffering from. I also note that you [laughter] you rely on a case called ex parte merriman that was written by chief Justice Taney<\/a> who also wrote the dred scott decision. [laughter] is he really a reliable source for liberties principles . We like the case because the plaintiff won. [laughter] [applause] that case was about suspension of the writ of habeas corpus . And why is it thats strictly academic in this case . Because whether its executive or the legislature, legislature in oceania is under the thumb of the executive. That is correct, your honor. And my opponent relies on the silence of congress as assent by congress, and we would argue that we cannot rely on congress to protect the rights of the citizens of oceania. Well, i would see that differently. I mean, hasnt congress effectively acquiesced in the unconstrained president ial powers that president freeman is exercising here . I mean, congress hasnt acted meaningfully in years. [laughter] [applause] in fact, the government leaders care so much for the peoples safety that they have almost nothing but safe seats left in congress. [laughter] that is exactly right, justice pillard, and that is exactly why we rely on this court for relief yeah, but those actions which you are complaining, so they happened 32 years ago. Are you discriminating against those with age . Isnt there a time when we turn the page . [laughter] [applause] [laughter] your honor, the thought police like all officials are presumed to have knowledge and respect for basic, unquestioned Constitutional Rights<\/a> as set forth by our Founding Fathers<\/a> to be free from unlawful arrest, detention and torture. Ms. Jeffers, i have another question which i will ask you in english. [laughter] a brief quote, nothing was illegal since there were no longer [inaudible] to quote from your brief. Doesnt that mean that no be law could have been clearly established . That is a concern that we have with the entire concept of qualified immunity in this case, your honor, is that there is no rule of law in a state like oceania. Again, we would submit that only this court can restore the rights of the citizens of oceania. So in conclusion, your honors, we insist that the defendants, the thought police, be held liable for their illegal mistreatment of Winston Smith<\/a>. They must be held liable. No other outcome is consistent with the constitution, the vision of the Founding Fathers<\/a> that Justice Breyer<\/a> has so articulately quoted [laughter] and not some. And no other outcome is consistent with justice. I dont know, your whole argument seems premised on the idea that were in some kind of dystopian, Science Fiction<\/a> be police state or something. [laughter] the scenario is 1984. [laughter] but youre asserting a privacy right x i checked and i checked, and your client is all over google and facebook and twitter and ins gram and snapchat and for this audience, linkedin. [laughter] [applause] and he even posted selfbyes with lebron james selfies with lebron james, is my understanding. [laughter] so what privacy right is left . Wouldnt you have to concede that apple, google and facebook know more about him than the state could ever learn . Your honor, that is an excellent point. Our client, however, did try to lead a private life and tried to have a relationship with a lover in the state that he was unable to have because of the states intrusionive surveillance. So there is privacy which he sought. And in addition, your honor, i would note that through the malware that the state has placed on all of our devices, its impossible to know whether all of the social media was truly originated by winston myth or had been placed Winston Smith<\/a> or had been placed there by the ministry of truth for which he worked and for which he and others regularly used to transmit propaganda to support the states repressive regime. And i also noted that in your opponents brief they made some mention in footnote five of practices in Foreign Countries<\/a>. But you didnt. You seem to focus only on domestic law. And are you aware that Justice Breyer<\/a> just published a book called [laughter] american law and the new Global Reality<\/a> . Are you disrespecting his views of the law . [laughter] i am aware of the book, your honor, and would never disrespect yeah, but did you read the book . [laughter] i bought the book. [laughter] ah, youre the one [laughter] i dont understand, i dont understand how you can [inaudible] given Winston Smith<\/a>s own description of his condition after his reeducation by the state. He said, quote, that he, quote, logged big brother. But he understood that the party had helped him, quote, win the victory over himself. This seems to be a happy, content man. Whats he complaining about . Your honor, the state also argues that kin Winston Smith<\/a>s argues that Winston Smith<\/a>s problems are of his own making, that he is a victim of his own mine. Is someone paranoid if everybody truly is out to get him as the state clearly is in this case . This is the case for Winston Smith<\/a>. He is the victim. The state criticizes his very thoughts. And how is the state aware of these private thoughts . Through its constant, unlawful, unrelenting surveillance, exactly the practice that smith challenges today. But precisely. We might as well dismiss now smiths case, if im understanding you correctly, which asserts a reasonable expectation of privacy. The essence of which is his unwillingness to show everything. So hasnt he effectively pled himself out of courtsome because an unwillingness to share everything via the iphone is contrary to the i patriot act. [laughter] he would not be showing everything through his iphone if the state did not have it infected by malware to make its every communication available to the state. But what about his facebook posts . Everythings out there, right . Why do you have what is your line about, between privacy of what youre sharing on social media and what you want to share with the state . Why cant the state find out too . In oceania, Winston Smith<\/a> is not free to share his own posts because the thought police and the ministry of truth control everything. And i would like to reserve the remaining five minutes of my time for rebuttal, may it please the court. Thank you. Thank you, ms. Jeffress. [applause] and we will now hear from counsel for oceania, bob baur. Madam chief justice, and if as we strongly recommend it please the court [laughter] what then is this legal proceeding . Judges, counsel all over over te public except for the unfortunate who could not accept the ticket price. [laughter] all the world can see that this smith with his violent criminal history is now free to be a litigant, and this transition is the hallmark of a rule of law society. Petitioner claims he has been lawlessly tortured, but he grounds that in a record that is replete with paranoia. Its so 1984. Everybodys out to get him. State officials are whispering cryptically to him in hallways, and we say, oh, please. He also said that our Surveillance Program<\/a> is sure to land him in prison, but how could he know that . Why would we not have done it before now, before this spectacle and put him away quietly, sparing him unimaginable Legal Expense<\/a> . [laughter] the court will note our moderation to defend against your eurasia, we propose to build an incredible wall and have them pay for it [laughter] that they refuse is not our fault. Now petitioner says he should be able to sue the officials who interrogated him for damages siting ex parte merriman, that oneman show of Group Judicial<\/a> force rightly resisted by the heroic lincoln. Yes, lincoln arrested and exiled opposition, yes, he shut down newspapers. But like our aptly named president freeman, he committed that these measures would be temporary. So when petitioner visits that marbled memorial out by the reflecting pool that each year attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors and pigeons, what does he imagine that he sees . The tawny memorial . No. We stand with lincoln and with the officers who acted on the authority of the order issued in the constitutional tradition that he forged. So allow me to close now many words of shakespeare in the words of shakespeare [laughter] when this thief, this traitor shall see us rising in our throne, his treason will sit blushing in his face, not able to endure the sight of day or selfaffrighted, tremble at his sin. Or to put it more simply, deny the claims, well take it from there. [laughter] [applause] counsel, you have made some pretty strong arguments against Winston Smith<\/a>. As i read your argument, you seem to be saying that no one has standing to object toes what is going to what is going on in oceania. Your threshold argument is there is no standing, go away. Who does have standing . Well, surely somebody who has not already been vaporized has standing. [laughter] they can hardly be standing if they are a vapor. [laughter] i think [laughter] so anyone, anyone who has not yet been vaporized has standing . Some well, its a good start. [laughter] everybody is subject to this 24 7 surveillance. So among those everybody, who can sue . Well, as you know, these cell phones are equipped with a device that is activated only upon the application of certain criteria. The petitioner doesnt though what these criteria are, does not fight them and be has no reason to believe that he would be arrested because of their application. So we would have to have a petitioner coming in saying here are the reasons why im confident the cell phone will be turned on, and i will be followed. And were quite confident, youre right, chief justice, nobodys going to have the nerve to come in and say that. I think your argument that the risk of harm to smith is jekyllture really proves too much. Even thinking about this lawsuit made smith guilty of thought crimes. Once he filed it, you either have to go after him or anytime that you dont really admit that you dont really care what people think. And if the government doesnt care what people think, how can it defend under the i patriot act . Oh, judge, the government cares profoundly what the people think or we wouldnt be equipping these cell phones with these surveillance devices. [laughter] mr. But but but bauer, franki couldnt figure out 40 to question the government how to question the government. [inaudible] so i want to ask you this about surveillance. You say in your brief that smiths reeducation makes it [inaudible] i dont see how thats consistent with oceanias pre1984 policy. Reeducating the people, returning them to the population and waiting, making them disappear. [inaudible] we shall shame you. Well, i should point out to you, judge tatel, that the record shows by end of the book Winston Smith<\/a> is still very much with us. And though counsel today chose not to appear with him, hes represented. There must somewhere be an engagement letter. [laughter] do you mean lincoln the president or lincoln the automobile . [laughter] i meant one a that runs in compliance with all applicable Safety Standards<\/a> imposed by the state of oceania. My other question was how do you turn on a cell phone anyway . [laughter] im sorry, how does he turn on no, how do i turn one on. Aye been trying [laughter] you dont have to worry about that at all, Justice Breyer<\/a>, were going to turn it on for you when we please. [laughter] i thought that your brief and some of your argument here, youre actually really understating the level of intrusion. Its not just the monitoring new the phones, but isnt it true that you recently had dropped in a socalled metro safe track program that [laughter] designed to keep us all trapped in our homes for the next year so you can [laughter] [applause] judge, i didnt hear all your questions [inaudible] be. Youre not responsible for the traffic in this city, are you . That was your question. The metro safe track program that keeps everybody locked in their homes. Did you tart that . Its entirely a pilot project. [laughter] no, but im getting very interested now. [laughter] i think this is a why did you why are you doing all these things . [laughter] were doing what is necessary to protect the state of oceania against the threats that petitioner himself admitted to committing what kinds of threats . The threat of internal insurgency, the threat of aid to our enemy, the threat that that book would go on and on and on. [laughter] my book . [laughter] no, Justice Breyer<\/a>, but id like to speak to you afterwards about the audio version. [laughter] lets go back to your point that why winston smut . Hes already been vapor bized. Vaporized. What about the poppe hard refrain, we did it before and we can do it again . That common sense understanding . That [inaudible] that he particularly, well, think about the sexual offender registration law. The whole premise is if he did it once, youre likely to do it again. So Winston Smith<\/a>s position is the state did it before, they are likely to do it again. But what mr. Smith doesnt account for is that we have a rigorous Reeducation Program<\/a> that, as you know, we have funded the race to the bottom. [laughter] and our goal there was to provide what we call a gore curriculum, the effect of which is to make sure that when mr. Smith emerges, hes a changed and better man, the very contented man that judge tatel has identified so correctly in the book. I want to follow up on Justice Ginsburgs<\/a> question, though, because she asked you why youre going after this poor man, Winston Smith<\/a>. I want to know why the government isnt trying to surveil obrien. Hes a far more, hes a far greater danger to the state. After all, he [inaudible] goldsteins book which implies thought crime. Hes far more dangerous [inaudible] well, obriens not my client, though he authorizes the payment of my bills. [laughter] therefore, im most responsive to him, your honor. Yeah. But what i want to say about that so obrien, to obrien yeah. Doesnt admit to the authorship of that book. That book is a thinly guised tract, goldstein, of a volume by leon trotzky, and it advocates the most violent method used. So brine, in fact, is part of the solution and not at all part of the problem. Why wasnt julia prosecuted . Thats my question. Did she play the woman card . [laughter] your horn, oceania is a merciful state that applies the law on the specific facts. There was no indication there was anything other than than someone who, in love with this man, had been induced to enter into the conspiracy. Thats what i mean. Its a shame to say that oceania lacks the rule of law when its brimming over with that kind of empathy. [laughter] i have a question about rule of law and oceania. It seems that the legitimacy of freemans administration depends on the people believing that by winning the election, they won back some of their Civil Liberties<\/a>. Im a little confused by you saying that obrien is your client. I thought you were representing the the state and not the individual defendants. And i think youre really missing an opportunity here. Right . So you could have the illusion of the rule of law and do whatever you want if you just pin it on the individual defendants. Like, why are you even here with the qualified immunity appeal . Oceania says, oh, its all their fault, not ours. But youre here appealing. Let the, you know, avoid liability for the freeman administration and let the individuals take the fall. Isnt that core . That soundses very appealing. Thank you for suggesting it. [laughter] rewind and start all over again. Thats very good, yes. [laughter] but how could, how can you possibly claim qualified immunity for the individual defendants in the case like this . Be i mean, we do have a constitution. Its stipulated, its still this force. Are you asking us on qualified immunity to forget about the nuremberg principle . Your honor, as you know weve adopted the United States<\/a> constitution. That isnt to say we fully believe in it. [laughter] were adapting it to current conditions. But one thing we know for sure is that the executive order pursuant to which these officials acted was well known for years. Theres no reason to believe they thought it was anything other than lawful. Theres no reason for us to hold those lore on the totem pole responsible for the records or errors or the misdeeds of the higher ups. And the higher up, in turn, would never be prosecuted for their disneeds because d misdeeds because theyre not capable of committing them. In response to Justice Ginsburgs<\/a> question, wasnt it reasonable to conceive that a reasonable officer would have known that it was unlawful to put on smiths face a wire cage full of rats . Yes . Your honor yes . First of all, i would answer in two parts. Number one, i would say that we have no testimony other than smiths own for that particular episode that you cite. But even if its true, i mean, everybodys a critic. [laughter] how far does the state go in the Emergency Powers<\/a> that it is claiming . I mean, it has committed detention of people, torture of people, torture okay in a time of terror. Is that your position this. No, chief justice ginsburg, thats not our position at all. Anybody whos attended middle school in the United States<\/a> knows theres a thin line between reeducation and torture. Its really a matter of nomenclature more than anything else. Didnt your is there such a thing as torture, and if there is, how to you define it . I have heard president ial debates this year that have gone on for three and a half hours, your honor, that i would characterize as torture, yes. [laughter] you claim the prerogative to suspend habeas corpus, but isnt it the case that only the legislature can us pend habeas corpus suspend be habeas corpus . Im just trying to understand whether youre contending that congress inability to fulfill even the most basic functions textually assigned to it such as vice and concept [laughter] gives the president powers that ordinarily would rest with the congress. [applause] well, your honor, i would say this. Congress has not been inactive. It took an enormous amount of work and political will to produce a suppressive statute like i patriot. So when it needs to rise the occasion, it does so. I hear it was is so long that nobody actually read it before it was enacted. That includes the members who passed it, yes, your honor. [laughter] yes, your honor. So i dont think its an accurate statement either that were saying congress had no role in the suspension of habeas. As in the lincoln example, congress acted only years after lincoln ignores judge taney, and here we are act by access yes, sir and thats far better than gridlock. And does your answer to judge pillard does that last on document from the Truth Department<\/a> . Oh, precisely. Thats my case. The point i made with your cocounsel and i want to ask you exactly your [inaudible] you represent a government that once ran a Truth Department<\/a> where you Railroad History<\/a> rewrote history. [inaudible] continued some of the most draconian policies of big brother. How do we have any confidence, how do we have think basis for believing that the rewriting of history policies of big brother are not [inaudible] as i discussed earlier, one should not dislying or Public Relations<\/a> strategies. What smith did was a kind of violent variety, but its spin. Its spin. Its not lies. [laughter] but you did, as you heard, put all, you know, minor things. [inaudible] so why dont we indict the higher ups or your honor, i think its very difficult to find higher ups in oceania who are doing anything other than their level best to protect the country. But one thing we know, whatever the record that shows about those misdeeds, and president freeman may well be committed to pursuing prosecution of those higher ups, this case is about smith. And smith is a fevered, paranoid discontent who was glad to draw a salary from the ministry of truth until everything went apart on him. And we reeducated him x he has been permitted to leave, and he has a lawyer. And if youre allowed to go free and you are represented by counsel of this country, then all constitutional guarantees of any meaning have been fulfilled. I dont have that impression from the record. [laughter] i did have a different impression. But if its, if hes continuing this policy, why dont we impeach president freeman too . If there is no law, why cant we just be activists . Well, as i said to you earlier, Justice Breyer<\/a>, what are we doing here . Is this a fundraising event . [laughter] we do have a higher law as stipulated that we have a constitution. What constitutional right does smith have . Does he have First Amendment<\/a> rights . Does she have Fourth Amendment<\/a> rights . Does he have eighth amendment rights . Does he have any of those . Yes, he absolutely does, chief justice ginsburg. And this is no question whatsoever. We embrace the United States<\/a> constitution x anytime that mr. Smith wants some exposure to those rights, hes free to inspect them. Theyre enclosed within glass at the national archives. [laughter] im not sure this is relevant to the case before us, but i just cant resist the opportunity since we have you here. Ive, i understand that in oceania two plus two equals five, and i wonder is that code for a gun plus a gun equals due process . [laughter] [applause] that i think, your honor s the new math that has been created by voter rage. [laughter] and the rats on the face were one thing, but didnt you really cross the line boo clearly unconstitutional into clearly unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment when you made him eat trump steaks . [laughter] [applause] quite the contrary, your honor. They are the very best steaks town anywhere of found anywhere. [laughter] as you know, we also offered him an opportunity to have the steaks with a book we supplied called art of the meal. [laughter] mr. Bauer, i want to assure you that given the current of judicial conduct which the freeman administration has reenacted, this is not a fundraiser. [laughter] judge tatel, under the holding of williams versus [inaudible] you are probably right. And is it, the theory about the constitutions place in a time of terror, and its known as death chair theory of Constitutional Rights<\/a>. That is, when the sun is shining, when we are at peace, we have all the Constitutional Rights<\/a> that we could have. But when the storm clouds gather, deck chairs are folded up and all the rights go away. Is that the view that youre trying to get this court to accept . Constitutional rights are for sunshine, theyre not for stormywet. Chief justice ginsburg, if i can liken it, for example, to a domed baseball stadium. Most people like to watch baseball in the open air be a bright and blue sky, but every now and then the weather interferes. The game of baseball continues when they close the roof. Thats, i think, an appropriately misleading analogy. [laughter] well, are you listening on are you listening to mr. Strongs cell phone or are you not . We listening to mr. Smiths cell phone . Oh, yeah, mr. Smith. Thats the problem. [laughter] our impression is that it was vaporized along with him. [laughter] were not getting a signal be, to be honest, Justice Breyer<\/a>. All right. So is it legal to vaporize people . Well, if their cell phones are not work, we see no harm in that. [laughter] good point. [laughter] is it okay to look at the law of other countries to determine whether thats a disproportionate punishment . Is it okay to look at the laws of other countries, Foreign Countries<\/a> to decide whether vaporization is disproportionate and cruel and unusual punishmentsome. The problem we have is there are only three countries on the face of earth, and the other two are mortal enemies, so wed have to be very cautious no, you forgot the country of vaporia. Oh, yes. Thats covered in your book, Justice Breyer<\/a>. Thank you. [laughter] i had one other question for you and that is really whether this is your means are disproportionate to the end. If you want to get inside be inside of our cell phones, do we really need to authorize the government to do it . Cant most teenagers do it . [laughter] well, yes, or your honor, but your wish is fulfilled. The government is currently being run by teenagers. [laughter] [applause] in conclusion [laughter] many in conclusion, petitioner has come here, or not, in fact, because hes no longer with us to claim that he has standing. He does not have standing. He does not have standing, and he should not be here attempting to suggest that this state in this courtroom in this legal proceeding with this public in attendance is in any way lawless. Were merely meeting the demands of the moment the best that we can, and as i said earlier, we stand in the tradition of some of our greatest president s who have had to take these steps in times of crisis. Thank you. [applause] ms. Jeffress, i think you have of five minutes, five minutes remaining. Thank you, your honor. My opponent, i would like to thank my opponent for his eloquent argument today and for the fact that he has conceded the critical point which is that he need not defend the individual officers in this case. Be he is representing big brother and leaving the individual officers out to dry. Can i just say that i am a little tired of all these references to big brother . Isnt it time to break Glass Ceiling<\/a> and have a with big sister . [laughter] [applause] of us in the audience would like to think that big sister would not be quite so abusive in the exercise of authority [laughter] [applause] thank you, your honor. [laughter] my opponent has outright admitted that the government is placing surveillance devices on its citizens, including Justice Breyer<\/a>. [laughter] i am shocked. [laughter] the state has argued that Winston Smith<\/a> is a member of the insurgency that must be prevented from terrorizing oceania which justifies depriving him of his civil rights. And then the state argues that he has not established that his civil rights are being violated. This is exactly the kind of double think that brig brother has brought to oceania that we depend on this court to put an end to. Big brother cannot be trusted. President freeman is nothing but a thinlydisguised incarnation of big brother. Only this court can protect citizens hike Winston Smith<\/a> from the draconian abuses of power that the state has committed here. This court must find for Winston Smith<\/a>. And if there are no further questions, i would like to conclude, because some members of the audience may have to return home by metro safe track. [laughter] thank you, come. Thank you, your honor. Thank you, counsel. [applause] all rise, the honorable bench will now deliberate. Please be seated. While the honorable bench deliberates, our jury will also decide the test their vote by placing a red or blue token in the baskets that are being passed along. The question presented for your to remind you is given the context of war or threat to National Security<\/a>, should the oceanian officials named as defendants in smiths lawsuit be held liable for their treatment of win stop smith in 1984 . Again, if you think they should not be held liable, you place the red token in the basket. If you think they should be held liable, you place the blue token in the basket. Again, the question is given the context of war or the threat to National Security<\/a>, should the oceania officials named as defendants be held liable for their treatment of Winston Smith<\/a> in 1984, no is red, yes blue. [inaudible conversations] ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Abby David Lowell<\/a> for tonights discussion. [applause] thank you. As is our tradition while the judges deliberate, wanted to make sure that we could continue the conversation. So, please, let me bring to the stage a person identify known for a while ive known for a while, a great lawyer, somebody who has insights into the themes that this book and this play addresses. Ted buttress is a both trial lawyer, adviser about crises and media events and was one of the lead lawyers in advising apple in the controversy that it has had and is having with the government; namely, the fbi. Ted was involved in litigation and advice to the company in dealing with the issues that were both in court, in the media and continue to be so. In a play, in a trial about 1984 what more apt and more relevant can it be than to welcome to the stage somebody whos living what George Orwell<\/a> only imagine ifed, ted buy toss. [applause] thank you. So lets start with the first question. I know everybody here knows the issue. Or knows of the controversy of apple versus fbi. But i have actually in my conversations including my own thoughts found that it is very misunderstood. Some liken it as a case about privacy, some about a taking of the government of peoples property. So lets start off by finally getting the font to tell us what is the dispute really about. I do appreciate the chance to talk about the apple case. We didnt really think about it as apple versus the fbi because it really the case raised very important issues about National Security<\/a>, the importance of Law Enforcement<\/a> x at the same time the privacy and security of citizens. And just a quick recap of what happened. After the tragic events in San Bernardino<\/a> in december, government immediately asked apple to produce information that it had regarding two killers and from phones that they had and from other information. Apple did that. It had some in the cloud and another it has a policy of cooperating with the government and assisting the government in response to warrants and subpoenas. But the government then went a step farther, and it took the troornd step of seeking extraordinary step of seeking an ex parte order from the court in San Bernardino<\/a>, first of federa, asking a that the court compel apple to develop new software that would destroy the security protections on one of the iphones used by one of the killers which was protected by a password. Apple has been working its an arms race to to protect all of our data from hackers, from cyber criminals, from terrorists. And one of the more recent features that apple had included was kind of the cherry on top of the security protocol and protections on the iphone is your password. Once you put your password in, that entangles with all the other security measures, and certain encrypted data in your phone, in your actual phone cannot be accessed by anyone who doesnt know the password including apple. The government didnt know the password, the individual was dead. The country of riverside whose phone it was, the employer of the phone, didnt though the password. And the government said it needed to get into that phone and asked the court to do something extraordinary which was have apple send we estimated six to ten engineers into the lab, to speak, to develop a brand new operating system that would allow government to hack into the phone, that would destroy security so its a little privacy, a little taking, its a little of both . Its a little outside both of those. As you were getting ready to argue big argument, it seems that it sort of blinked and didnt get to there. Is so what is the status right now . What happened was i had just finished my moot Court Getting<\/a> ready for the hearing where we were going to argue these issues, and i came back to the office, and the u. S. Attorney was on hone, and she said they might have found a solution that made apples cooperation unnecessary. They subsequently announced they had developed a means to get boo that particular phone. In another case in new york where a judge had issued a very strong ruling saying that the separation of powers precluded the court from authorizing a back door into the iphone that the government could get boo and that this was get into and this was not permissible. Sort of an all powerful imagine ific wand that the government could use to get. One of things we said was this was an issue American People<\/a> must decide through their elected representatives whether its security and privacy of citizens versus Law Enforcement<\/a>. So those or were all important issues, and those are political issues, policy issues. The fbi director comey said the same thing, these are issues of policy. So i think apple and others have called for a commission and some process. So with your perspective, let me ask you first obvious question. So in 1949 orwell presented 1984. Many would say what we live with is not as bad as he envisioned, many would say its worse. For example, the nsa. But as the questions indicated, theres google and amazon that you get on, they know exactly what you bought and what youre thinking of buying and the place where you buy clothes for your kids and your hobbies. So with your new perspective, what do you think . Many as bad as orwell thought . Better . What do you think . I think were in much better shape than oceania in 1984 [laughter] let me get that on the table. I do think there are big differences. So now we have this information capability. And, yes, we all give up certain secrets and privacy when we voluntary hi post things on facebook and the like. But the difference, and if you look at what ironically as youll recall the most famous ad of all time or one of them was the 1984 ad by apple x. The theme of it was to break out of conformity, that individualism would flourish with devices like the mcintosh then and the iphone now and other devices that allow individuals to communicate, speak and get their views of the truth out on the record where as in oceania, big brother was using the surveillance tactics to squelch freedom and to oppress citizenry and to change what the truth and the actual facts are. So i think its a big difference. [applause] thank you. See . [laughter] has the law regulating government and private technology and the [inaudible] kept up with the technology . It really hasnt. I mentioned the all writs act was enacted in 789. So that was 1789. So that was what the government had to use to try to get court to force apple to write new software to allow the government to get boo devices. And one of the things we argued is that would be subject it would be the grand prize for hackers to steal that software to they could use it and misuse it for illicit purposes. But they had [inaudible] and then they relied on a federal opinion from 1807 where they claimed the perk was required to decipher something on the stand. To that was the law they were relying on to ask for this really brand new technological order from the court. So i think the law does immediate to be looked at. And also i think the law restricting the government. Because as you suggested, there is incredible surveillance techniques that the government now has, immense power. We want the government to be able to use that to protect our country, to protect citizens, to go after terrorists and evildoers and all of that, but at the same time we have different interests in our country, privacy, security. So we need the laws to be revised in a way that checks the government so we dont start going at least small steps down the big brother road. So as the questions also projected, the bedrocking principle of the Fourth Amendment<\/a> and the check of power in that way in the most traditional constitutional sense is the expectation of privacy. So given what we now know exists ranging from the nonstop social media to cameras on every Street Corner<\/a> to the ability of the government and private enterprise as i said to be involved every time we turn on our computer, has the expectation of privacy change to that the law will now reflect we no not any longer live in that kind of place where you shut your doors, you shut your shutters . Is that one of the things that needs to be addressed . If thats the case, by legislation . It has changed, for sure. We all have a different expectation of privacy than we did 20 years ago because of these technological advances, the information we choose to give out, but we give it out in order to participate in these incredible tools and apps and technologies. And so i do think the courts will be important, and the courts have been. The Supreme Court<\/a>, with new technologies, has applied the Fourth Amendment<\/a> in a way that protects privacy in the sang i think of your home sanctity of your home when drones are being used. But i do think it has an effect. Now, weve seen some backlash. We saw the verdict against gawker by hulk hogan, and i think there was a sense there of the pushback in terms of some things still are private. But i think we have to look at it differently. That was one to have big things in the apple one of the big things in the apple manner. We have so much crucial data on our phones, our lives are there, that we need law to protect that and look at other interests that are important as well. If you had the ability to Tell Congress<\/a> that is looking at this right now the one thing they should legislate that would get the balance right, the one thing, what would that one thing be . It would be that there should be encryption to protect at the end of the line. The balance should be struck to protect data and not to give a a back door to the government because of all of the risk that entails. And its not just me. The defense secretary during the controversy that we just went through said endtoend encryption is the most important for security, for national curt. And so i would for National Security<\/a>. So i would start with that premise. And there are competing laws and bills floating around on both sides. Lets start with that premise and then think about how do we address these other issues. So i take it then that we are ready to live with the proposition that if the government cant get at the data through their means, they dont have the power to compel it by any other means, a back door. Our system is built on the fact that at some point we recognize Law Enforcement<\/a> or other interests give way to other important interests like privacy, like First Amendment<\/a> rights. We argued this was a First Amendment<\/a> violation, forcing someone to write code to do manager they strongly believed against was forced speech. And the Supreme Court<\/a> has said many times that our bill of rights exists to say at some point we may not be able to get every piece of evidence, but its worth it to give that up and to protect overriding values and rights. So one last question. This is a special audience thats supporting this special theater. We can agree among us to keep this to ourselves [laughter] right . All right. So when is the iphone 7 coming out . And how will it differ [laughter] thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] all rise. [background sounds] please be seated. Please welcome back Abby David Lowell<\/a> to read the yours decision. To read the jurys decision. [laughter] i think im going to defer to the bench first. [laughter] as i was saying [laughter] counsels performance was superb in what was, i think this audience will agree, a more difficult case than is usually presented at the shakespeare theater mock trials. So you were both excellent. [applause] and on the merits, majority has concluded that this is a very easy case because if war is peace, then we are in peacetime, and there is no excuse for any of these extraordinary measures. [laughter] [cheers and applause] but if i can interject a serious note, a great jurist confronted with the question pose the police suppose the Police Suspect<\/a> that they have apprehended someone who knows where and when the ticking bomb is going off. Can the police use torture to extract that information . Answer was simple torture never x. Why . Because we could hand our enemies no greater victory than many than in our concern for security we lose all basic values that make us a human society. [applause] and now i will ask my colleagues on the bench to add concurring x in one case a dissenting, view. So [laughter] is Justice Breyer<\/a> first. Well, with my colleague, justice ginsburg, i agree. Thats as good an opinion as i ever did see. [laughter] besides that, he has clout because ginsburg, j. Knows what shes talking about. [laughter] [applause] and now judge mihlett. I concur in the judgment in part because i think the state was, is overly excessive in what its doing. We know its not necessary if the goal here is to stop the 1 of people who are terrorists. There has been an alternative plan discussed in the public, and that will be just to tax the 1 and take all that money to buy Free Hamilton<\/a> tickets for everybody else. [laughter] [applause] judge pillard. I would say that the government is not entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity does not apply what where the law is established. And because oceania is only think about sent and makes the law, it must be [inaudible] whether its been announced by any court or not. And our dissenter, judge tatel. With all due respect to my colleagues and, of course, this wont be the first time the Supreme Court<\/a> has not agreed with me [laughter] i dont feel that im in a position to decide this case. Ms. Jeffress and mr. Bauer each represent clients who will haven rewriting history for decades. The country of oceania and its predecessor through its Truth Department<\/a> and Winston Smith<\/a> [inaudible] so i have absolute confidence in the record or [inaudible] otherwise fine lawyers told us today. [laughter] and as a result, i would issue an order requiring each of them to submit within 30 days an affidavit by a person qualified to testify to the facts as to what actually happened here. [laughter] then ill decide the case. [laughter] [applause] and now can we have the jurys verdict . So i would sorry, Justice Breyer<\/a>, i would like to say that in the way this theater has always given of the audience its final say, the tokens represent if you remember blue for those who believe that the oceania officials should be held liable for their actions against Winston Smith<\/a> and the red that, no, he should not be held liable. [laughter] pleasure pleasure. [applause] this concludes Winston Smith<\/a> v. Oceania, 1984, presented by the Shakespeare Company<\/a> bard association. Enjoy the rest of your evening. [applause] [inaudible conversations] youre watching booktv on cspan2, television for serious readers","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia800503.us.archive.org\/20\/items\/CSPAN2_20160723_154500_1984_Mock_Trial\/CSPAN2_20160723_154500_1984_Mock_Trial.thumbs\/CSPAN2_20160723_154500_1984_Mock_Trial_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240625T12:35:10+00:00"}